The assessee had used Client Code Modification (CCM) as a tool for tax evasion and only settled trades have been considered to arrive at beneficiaries. As per said information, Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice upon assessee on ground that assessee had shifted out profit of certain amount and losses of certain amount resulting in net reduction in income of certain amount through CCM. On writ the  assessee contended that there was distinction in recordal of reasons for initiating proceedings under section 148 as appearing upon a reading of a copy which was supplied to assessee and pro forma for recording reasons to initiate proceedings under section 148 which existed on record of revenue. Court held  that   recordal of facts and reasons in pro forma would clearly indicate that information was identically transcribed on record of revenue as well. An annexure which was a copy of reasons supplied to assessee clearly tallied with an annexure which appeared on record except for pro forma additionally referring to information being basis for Assessing Officer having reason to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment. Minor discrepancies in language employed by revenue and as it stood reflected in reasons provided to assessee and that which existed on record would clearly not justify for interference reopening notice. Writ petition is dismissed. (AY. 2009-10 to 2012-13)